Divine Immanence Part 2

I identify more with rationalism than reverence, so I can critique Spinoza's puritanical rationalism as being unrealistic. It's a bit like asking someone to connect with their child only through intellectual appreciation of the qualities of juvenile humans.

Feelings are bound to come into it, even if they're messy and make us prone to error. Hence there's no stark dividing line, but more like general trends in self-identification based on what first comes to mind when we discuss attitudes toward divinity in nature.

I think Neopagans are more likely to place reverence or even worshipful attitudes toward nature front and center when trying to put a finger on what draws them to that tradition and that label. Rosicrucians sometimes also express reverence for nature, but that tends to be less central to the practice than natural and spiritual philosophy.

"How great thou art, Mother Nature!" is not the usual Rosicrucian M.O. Rather than devotional feeling, I think we find the ever-evolving code of the universe to be awe-inspiring in its complexity, and try to understand its fundamental rationality so that we can bring our own inner beings more in harmony with its laws. Of course, this is still very generalized, and not applicable to all Rosicrucians any more than pantheism is applicable to all Neopagans.

I find my own practice straddles the fence, and involves something more like a personal god-concept, as I alluded to in my post on The Heroine's Journey even though I don't believe in a personal god as an actual entity.

To engage in finely-parsed syntax as Spinoza was wont to do, you might say that I'm a Neopaganesque Rosicrucian rather than a Rosicrucianesque Neopagan. Or to put it in quantum terms, the dividing line becomes more difficult to pin down the harder you look at it.